Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[James R]

Why do we use mathematics to make things work in reality?

We don't. Mathematics doesn't make things work in reality.

Higgs just hit a lucky jackpot?

Higgs built up a model, drawing on other, existing models. He used his model to suggest a test which could determine whether his model was a good or a bad description of one aspect of the real world.

I guess you could say he was lucky that his idea turned out to reflect reality. Many other hypothetical ideas in physics turn out not to.

Again let me ask, if I can describe something with mathematics that thing does not have mathematical properties?

A description of something is the map; the thing itself is the territory. You're constantly mistaking the map for the territory.

 

[James R]

Wrong!

Name one "mathematical function" that is "naturally occurring". Why is there a Fibonacci sequence? Because there was a human being called Fibonacci - no other reason.

Wrong!

Describe one instance in which "nature" has "revealed" any piece of mathematics, no humans involved.

That ridiculous question is not worthy of an answer.

In other words, you're unable to meet the challenge I put to you, so you're trying to laugh it off instead.

One observed mathematical expression is found in the Fibonacci Sequence of plants.

Really? Where is the "mathematical expression" to be found in a plant?

This sequence was a result of natural selection, selecting for maximum efficiency in growth and energy harvesting.

I assume then, that you can show precursor sequences that were "naturally selected" out? Can you?

Nature invented the Fibonacci Sequence, not humans. We discovered it!

Why isn't it called the "Nature Sequence"?

There you go again with Intelligent Design. You have what is called an Abrahamic mindset.

I asked you a question: "Is the universe a conscious being, according to you? Is the universe your god?"

Why didn't you answer the question I asked you?

Here's a hint: when I am telling you what I think, I won't end with a question mark. I will end with a full stop (period). On the other hand, when I'm asking you what you think, I will end with a question mark. Keep this in mind.

You are kidding?

The question I asked you was "How does 'the universe' respond to humans doing mathematics, exactly?"

No, I'm not kidding. I am asking you to explain - to expand on the claim you made previously.

That is a wrong assumption on your part.

So you're not saying that mathematics causes things to form, or to grow, or to make patterns? Because that was my assumption, based on what you wrote.

What are you saying, then?

Mathematics are the "guiding principles" by which physical values (patterns) interact.

Are these principles concepts in a human being's head?

How could a mathematical principle possibly guide how a physical thing interacts? Are mathematical principles conscious?

Read some biology and you'll find that you are wrong.

I concede that "self-formation" is a term that can be found in a dictionary, and hence it is a term in English. I don't need to read any biology for that. The dictionary is enough.

Plants actively solve problems, via cell memory.

Please give one example of a problem that the cell memory in plants solves.

[Natural selection] is a subtractive process, no?

Not mathematically subtractive. You're clutching at straws as usual.

Describing natural mathematical models is not describing the mathematics of nature?

What is a "natural mathematical model"? Do plants write textbooks or run computer simulations?

Yes, and when he challenged spacetime with a mathematical model to produce the boson, universal mathematics granted his request, because he had the maths right. I believe that is called proof?

There's that idea of "universal mathematics" as God, again. Do you believe your "universal mathematics" is a conscious being that can grant requests, now?

[Daisies] don't need to [know about the Fibonacci sequence]. Nature selected plants with that configuration for vertical strength, most efficient distribution of petals for maximum solar exposure. That is why the Fibonacci Sequence can be found everywhere on earth and throughout the universe.

Your sentence starting with "That is why..." is a complete non sequitur. The natural selection of plants is not a reason why the Fibonacci sequence can be found "everywhere on earth and throughout the universe".

Lemurs don't count like humans. They can recognize the difference between "more" and "less".

And so?

Very mathematical in essence.

Lemurs can do some maths? Okay. So what? We're apes, and we can do some maths, too.

You do know that the exponential function is explained with a human model of procreation?

No - you have it backwards, as usual. The human model of procreation can be explained, to some degree, with the exponential function. In other words, that function is useful in the mathematical description of population growth.

 

[James R]

I know that a boson cannot exist in this reality. That's why it instantly decays after manifestation.

Isn't the "manifestation" a case of the boson existing in this reality?

If the Higgs boson never exists in this reality, how could the LHC possibly detect it?

 

[James R]

But making a painting or a map is not dealing with reality. It is representing reality.
It has nothing to do with physics. And make no mistake, painting a picture and drawing maps are mathematical processes.

You contradict yourself in consecutive sentences.

A mathematical model of a physical system is a map. You claim in your first sentence that this is "not dealing with reality". That's correct, in a sense: playing around with a mathematical model is not dealing with reality. Of course, in another sense, it's incorrect: a good mathematical model is supposed to reflect certain aspects of the physical reality being modelled, so in that sense it is obviously dealing with reality.

There is no process that does not involve some form of mathematical function.

Only the process of humans doing maths involves mathematical functions. Only human beings write down mathematical functions, as far as we know.

Ask any cosmologist. They will tell you that mathematics are discovered properties of spacetime and dynamical processes.

It depends very much on which cosmologist you ask. You should not misrepresent.

Doing reality requires mathematical interactive values.

Word salad.

Instead of painting a tree, let's plant a tree seed in a pot and make it grow. What do the preparations for that require?

Not the writing down of mathematical functions; that's for sure.

What does the seed require to sprout and grow?

Feeding it mathematical functions won't help.

How big must the pot be, how much light is sufficient, how much water is sufficient, how much soil is sufficient? These preparations require mathematical amounts of resources to simulate a natural environment that is most effective for success.
OTOH, too much water will spoil the seed and it will die.

What you are saying is that a human being planting a plant will have a model in his or her head about the requirements the plant will have to grow and prosper. That model might be right or wrong. If it is a useful model, then the human being will provide the correct requirements; if it is a bad model, the plant won't grow. Either way, the model doesn't determine whether the plant will prosper or die; the physical resources the plant has (or lacks) will determine that.

The qualities and quantities for robust growth require mathematics or you will have a dead seed and no tree.

No. Plants in the wild do just fine without mathematicians.

When the quantities and qualities of the resources are not sufficient, trees and entire forests die.

Physical resources, not mathematical resources.

Nature uses generic mathematics when natural values interact and produce results.

What is this abstract "nature" thing? How does it use "generic mathematics"? Does it read textbooks and use a pencil? Does it own a calculator? Or does it use a slide rule?

it is true that nature does not know the symbol 2.

What does "nature" know? Is it a God? A thinking being?

When we do mathematics we are COPYING natural values and interactive functions.

Then there ought to be some "interactive functions" that are visible somewhere in nature. Where are they hiding?

 

[James R]

A tree is a mathematical object.

No. Trees are physical things, not mathematical abstractions.

All trees on earth are more or less based on the same mathematical growth pattern that evolved over time into the familiar shapes we see.

What does "based on" mean, in that sentence? Mathematics does not cause trees to grow. How could it?

Compare trees and ask what makes them look alike so that we can immediately identify a tree as a tree? It's the mathematical pattern that tells us it is a tree and tells the artists how to paint a tree.

Experience is what lets us identify trees, not mathematics.

 

[James R]

There is about the Higgs boson. It cannot exist independently. That's why there are no observable Higgs bosons. There are none. They don't belong in this explicated dimension. They are virtual values, but do respond to specific (mathematical) physical conditions.

What on earth do you think the Large Hadron collider detected?

Do you think the LHC peered into another dimension, to see "virtual values"?

With respect, that's nutty as a fruitcake.

 

[James R]

Well measuring the distance between Los Angeles and New York, our maths are accurate to within a hair's breadth.

Of course not! Don't be silly.

What do you even mean by "measuring the distance between Los Angeles and New York"? You realise, for starters, that both of those are large cities, not dimensionless points, I hope. Think about that.

IOW, there is no other measuring and recording system that is more accurate than symbolized mathematics that allows us to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Symbolised mathematics is not a measurement system.

I am sorry to say that I see your comparisons of human symbolic maths with Universal generic maths as a false comparison.

I see that, at this point in the discussion, you found yourself struggling mightily. Instead of giving up on your bad ideas, you saw a possible way out: you could introduce a spurious new distinction between "human symbolic maths" and "universal generic maths", and pretend that all this time you've had such a distinction in mind.

In reality, of course, this is just more desperate flailing around from you. There is no "universal generic maths". There's only "human symbolic maths".

Can you provide one example of a universal process that does not utilize mathematics that can be symbolized to represent the values involved?

That question is barely intelligible.

Can you provide one example of a universal process that does (explicitly) utilise mathematics?

IMO. there is no escape from the mathematical nature of natural processes. It can all be represented with algorithms and differential equations, no? We make mathematics because the universe is a mathematical object.
The universe is not a mathematical object because our mathematics make it that way.

Hopelessly muddled.

You say that natural processes can be represented with algorithms and differential equations. That implies you're making a mathematical model to "represent" a physical thing. Right?

Then you agree that "we make mathematics".

But at the top, you also say "there is no escape from the mathematical nature of natural processes". The escape is easy, given what you've written: all we need to do is to make a choice not to use a mathematical model, or not to "make the mathematics". Done.

In practice, lots of people get through life just fine without worry too much about mathematics. An artist can paint a tree without knowing any maths. You can drive your car around a corner without having to consult a physics textbook. Gardeners grow plants just fine without doing calculus.

 

[James R]

Yes, because they are different topics.

Human symbolization of natural generic mathematics are different but dependent on observation of natural functions and expressions.

Universal generic mathematics are independent from but causal to human observation.

They are not different things! Human maths is the symbolization of universal maths.
They are the SAME THING as described by increasingly more accurate human codification representation of what is going on in reality.

Make up your mind.

If you can't be consistent from one post to the next, doesn't that suggest to you that there might be some fatal errors in your thinking?

I mean, you're literally contradicting yourself, almost in consecutive posts.

All patterns in nature, including the human pattern, have universally common mathematical properties (constants).

Name three universal common mathematical properties that all patterns in nature have, including the human pattern.

The proven existence of Universal Constants rests on the constancy of logical interacting relational values and functions, what we have named "mathematics", but acknowledging that what we call mathematical permissions or restrictions guided the evolutionary history of the Universe, long before man came on the scene.

Word salad.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's an intractable problem with debating this topic with Write4u:

His arguments are semantic. He uses the term 'mathematical' differently than its actual meaning. If he sees three rocks, he claims nature can count to three.

Because his arguments are semantic, they are unfalsifiable. There is no way to definitively argue that "three rocks is not mathematical" because it's a vacuous claim anyway.

And because they are unfalsifiable, they are not scientific; they are philosophical.

But it also means opponents' objections are useless; there is nothing here to hang a true/false label on. It's nothing more than a debate over the slippery meanings of words. There's zero math or formal logic here - either in Write4u's claims or - more tellingly - in opponents' counterclaims. There is absolutely no way this debate can be resolved that doesn't involve one party just giving up.

Meanwhile, Write4u is perfectly happy to paste reams of his ideas for his future readers to praise him about when he is vindicated. With every response and we are enabling and condoning his preaching.

Has SciFos traffic dropped so low that we need the traffic that comes with preaching?

 

[C C]

[...] They are the SAME THING as described by increasingly more accurate human codification representation of what is going on in reality.
Reality is the physical expression of relational values, interacting via mathematical functions.
Oh no, I am perfectly aware of the differences between artificial human mathematics and generic Universal mathematics.

What I am saying is that they both are mathematical in essence.

CNRS: "Mathematics operates in two complementary ways. In the 'visual' one the meaning of a theorem is perceived instantly on a geometric figure [spatial]. The 'written' one leans on language, on algebra; it operates in time."

- - - - - -

Max Tegmark: A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity... If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape.

Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime --the bird perspective-- these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog [perspective] sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti.

If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta --a mathematical structure.

The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds [in is view] to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds. --Parallel Universes​

Well, that "simplified" example sounds akin to the topology of the block-universe attributed to Minkowski space or to the warping spacetime of later GR.

So if by "structure" Tegmark is referring to the symbol-based abstractions in mathematics being converted to their geometrical equivalents ("pictures"), then this seems to infringe a bit into the old primary qualities slash secondary qualities distinction. The primary properties (shape, mass, etc) are treated as objective or extrinsic affairs; whereas the secondary properties are regarded as subjective or intrinsic essences.

Taking this further, the primary properties (material characteristics) eventually become empty structure or diagram-like relationships between things that have been stripped of the secondary properties (phenomenal characteristics). Crudely similar to a coloring book (only outlines) that hasn't been filled in with crayon pigments yet.

John Gregg: It is worth noting that, properly speaking, physicalism itself can be seen as a kind of functionalism. This is because at the lowest level, every single thing that physics talks about (electrons, quarks, etc.) is defined in terms of its behavior with regard to other things in physics. [...] Because physics as a field of inquiry has no place for the idea of qualitative essences, the smallest elements of physics are characterized purely in functional terms, as black boxes in a block diagram.

What a photon is, is defined exclusively in terms of what it does, and what it does is (circularly) defined exclusively in terms of the other things in physics (electrons, quarks, etc., various forces, a few constants). Physics is a closed, circularly defined system, whose most basic units are defined functionally. Physics as a science does not care about the intrinsic nature of matter, whatever it is that actually implements the functional characteristics exhibited (and described so perfectly in our laws of physics) by the lowest level elements of matter.​

I guess Tegmark tries to dodge the usual duality of mathematicism (below) -- the rationalist version of reality versus the perceived one, by maybe asserting that brain consciousness adds all the qualities missing from the bare structural configurations existing outside our mental representations of the world.

Ever since Kant, the "sensible/phenomenal" world of Plato has been regarded as something outputted by the mind rather than a truly mind-independent counterpart of Plato's intellectual world (stratum of general forms/concepts, principles, laws, etc.)

Mathematical universe hypothesis: Tegmark's MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well.

[...] The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

- - - - -

Ontic structural realism: While ESR claims that only the structure of reality is knowable, ontic structural realism (OSR) goes further to claim that structure is all there is. In this view, reality has no "nature" underlying its observed structure.

Rather, reality is fundamentally structural, though variants of OSR disagree on precisely which aspects of structure are primitive. OSR is strongly motivated by modern physics, particularly quantum field theory, which undermines intuitive notions of identifiable objects with intrinsic properties. Some early quantum physicists held this view [...] Recently, OSR has been called "the most fashionable ontological framework for modern physics".

Max Tegmark takes this concept even further with the mathematical universe hypothesis, which proposes that, if our universe is only a particular structure, then it is no more real than any other structure.

- - - - - -

Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of numbers. The term Platonism is used because such a view is seen to parallel Plato's Theory of Forms and a "World of Ideas" described in Plato's allegory of the cave: the everyday world can only imperfectly approximate an unchanging, ultimate reality. Both Plato's cave and Platonism have meaningful, not just superficial connections, because Plato's ideas were preceded and probably influenced by the hugely popular Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, who believed that the world was, quite literally, generated by numbers.

Mathematicism: In summary [...] Mathematical Platonism can be reduced to three propositions...

(1) Existence. There are mathematical objects.

(2) Abstractness. Mathematical objects are abstract.

(3) Independence. Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices.​

_

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
Where is this "timeless, dimensionless condition" of yours? Is it just a concept, or does it exist somewhere?

Why do you ask what it is I am describing when I am describing the concept.
Timeless = b: having no beginning or end : ETERNAL
Dimensionless = A dimensionless number has no physical dimension (such as mass, length, or energy)
It is not anything at all. The word describes the absence of existence. But it does permit universal expansion (inflation) because there is nothing to impede it.

What is the process that turns an "unexpressed potential" into a "manifest physical pattern"?

func·tion
noun

1. 1.
   an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
   "bridges perform the function of providing access across water"
   
   2. MATHEMATICS

1. a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.
   "the function (bx + c)"

verb

1. work or operate in a proper or particular way.
   "her liver is functioning normally"
   
   Similar:
   work, go, run, (runs on unleaded fuel), operate, perform.

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Can you describe one specific example in which an "unexpressed potential" is "unfolded" into a "manifest physical pattern"? I want to see, for example, how a "mathematical function" can turn into a butterfly or a star or a turnip.

I did that a long time ago, but to refresh your memory, It was the example of a mountain lake having the potential for generating electricity via gravity feed of a downstream generator (black box).
The lake's enfolded potential ability to generate energy is made manifest (unfolded) by the process of using transformative functions. Potential: "That which may become reality".
David Bohm used those terms . Potential is part of the underlying "Implicate Order" he speaks of.

The question I asked you was "What's a 'fractal unfolding'? Can I do a fractal unfolding of a bed sheet, say? What would that look like, and how would it differ from a regular unfolding?"

Yes you could, but it would be very cumbersome.
A much better example is this:

The question I asked you was "Is the field due to the pilot waves directly detectable?"

Yes, see the double-slit experiment.
The measurable waves in the double slit experiment are conventionally as wave-state of the particle. Bohm, proposes that it actually represents the particle riding the underlying wave function, the pilot wave.

I don't know what that means. What does a description in "relational terms" look like? Please give a specific example, and explain what you mean by "relational terms".
Please give a specific example of such a description.

Any differential equation will do.

There are lots of properties we can use to distinguish different particles. They include mass, charge, spin, and others.

And how do these particles interact? And during their interaction do these properties relate in specific measurable ways (chirality)?

This, by the way, is an example of how one can briefly and succinctly answer a direct question. Please learn from this.

So far I have learned very little from the "terse" responses my posts have elicited.

Did I say I have an objection to Bohmian mechanics?

So far, yes, in so many words.

What is it a "contender" for? Is there a competition going on?

Yes, a TOE, from among several models, ok?

What I asked you was: "What are you talking about when you say "result before cause"? What result came before the thing that caused it? And how could a wave function collapse cause an observation?"

When a lightwave hits your retina it collapses and you are able to observe that quantum event. But the event must occur before observation, right? Copenhagen Interpretation proposes that the observation is causal to the event.

Why didn't you answer the question I asked you, Write4U? I am making a valiant effort to answer them all, but I do dismiss trivial questions.
After you answer the question I asked you, we'll find out whether I will entertain your idea of events causing observations. I don't hold out high hopes for that idea at present.

Excellent!
My idea is observation does not cause an event, the event is causal to observation (Penrose)

Axiom: Events occur independent of observation, unless the term observation is meant as "interaction".

The use of the term "observation" in science is very misleading and smacks of anthropomorphism and the suggestion that observation of an event is causal to that event and that requires backward time travel.

Observation (as defined) occurs at the point of observation and that point lies with the observer. Any observation she makes is of an event that has already happened in the past.
The proposition that observation is causal to the event means the observer had to travel back in time to cause the event which it then observed after it had occurred? Bad logic.

 

[Write4U]

His arguments are semantic. He uses the term 'mathematical' differently than its actual meaning. If he sees three rocks, he claims nature can count to three.

I do no such thing! But answer me this: If I don't see them, there are not 3 rocks? And what if 1 of those rocks falls on your head it didn't happen because there are no mathematical qualities (gravity) and quantities (mass) doing "work"?

Can you answer how work gets done in nature? How patterns form? I say that these phenomena are due to the mathematical quantification of universal dynamics (constants) depending on certain inherent qualities (values) and their deterministic (codifiable) interaction.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do no such thing! But answer me this: If I don't see them, there are not 3 rocks?

The rocks exist. Nobody says they don't.

And what if 1 of those rocks falls on your head it didn't happen because there are no mathematical qualities (gravity) and quantities (mass) doing "work"?

Gravity is not a mathematical quality. That is you semantical idea.
Gravity and mass work quite well without mathematics, as witnessed by the fact that they have been doing their thing for 13.7 billion years before math was invented.

This has been explained to you. Nothing you have said has changed that in any way.

Can you answer how work gets done in nature?

Of course I can.

How patterns form?

Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. Patterns are a product of perception and cognition.

I say...

Yes you do.

You say a lot of word salad...

that these phenomena are due to the mathematical quantification of universal dynamics (constants) depending on certain inherent qualities (values) and their deterministic (codifiable) interaction.

... that means nothing. It is entirely based on your mangling** of words and is utterly unfalsifiable as an idea.

**Here's just a few manglings:

"inherent qualities (values)"
"values" are an invention of humans. "1.5" is an example of a value. A 1.5kg mass of dirt has a value of 1.5 because a humans decided it did. There are no values in nature.

"deterministic (codifiable)"
You don't understand what either of these words mean, else you would not notate them as if they are synonymous. Determinism has nothing to do with codifiability. Oh, and, by the way, codifiability is something only humans can do.

Lots of good triggering buzzwords in there for you to go Google and spew pages of articles you don't read or understand....

 

[Write4U]

The rocks exist. Nobody says they don't.

And what are the properties of a rock?
[gravity] Gravity is not a mathematical quality. That is your semantical idea.[/quote]

Gravity and mass work quite well without mathematics, as witnessed by the fact that they have been doing their thing for 13.7 billion years before math was invented.

That is the wrong analogy. Gravity is a field and mass is a quantity. Both have mathematical measurements.

Universal mathematics allowed for the human codification of gravitational behaviors that existed for 13.7 billion years before humans "discovered" how it behaves and influences other objects and codified it with symbolic language that "explains" the field's mathematical properties and functions.

This has been explained to you. Nothing you have said has changed that in any way.

I would rather accept the observations of cosmologists who invariably maintain that human mathematics is a codified "accounting" of discovered quantifiable gravitational properties and functions and how they affect objects entering a gravitational field.

Of course I can.

WOW, could you enlighten me (and perhaps a lot of other people)?

Patterns are in the eye of the beholder. Patterns are a product of perception and cognition.

What I am talking about is this:

Pattern
4. : a natural or chance configuration
frost patterns
the pattern of events

7. : a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of an institution.
a behavior pattern

8. a : the flight path prescribed for an airplane that is coming in for a landing

10. : a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts

11. : frequent or widespread incidence

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pattern

Yes you do. You say a lot of word salad...

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the culinary arts. Chefs create attractive, healthy salads, by carefully selecting and measuring quantities of compatible vegetables in order to create a "finely balanced" culinary experience.

... that means nothing. It is entirely based on your mangling** of words and is utterly unfalsifiable as an idea.
**Here's just a few manglings:
"inherent qualities (values)"
"values" are an invention of humans. "1.5" is an example of a value. A 1.5kg mass of dirt has a value of 1.5 because a humans decided it did. There are no values in nature.

False! Calling a human symbolic representation of an objective quality as a human construct, is merely a redundancy.

A "force" has an objective generic value. A ''pattern" has an objective generic value. All physical objects are patterns made by their constitutional parts and are expressions of the sets of combined generic values.

"deterministic (codifiable)"
You don't understand what either of these words mean, else you would not notate them as if they are synonymous. Determinism has nothing to do with codifiability.

See next....

 

[Write4U]

Let's see
Deterministic algorithm

In computer science, a deterministic algorithm is an algorithm that, given a particular input, will always produce the same output, .....

Formally, a deterministic algorithm computes a mathematical function; a function has a unique value for any input in its domain, and the algorithm is a process that produces this particular value as output.

Are you telling me this does not happen without the presence of humans?
The Universe does not function deterministically because humans made up the word?
Take away humans and the Universe disappears, right?

Oh, and, by the way, codifiability is something only humans can do.

And pray tell, what is it they are codifying?

Lots of good triggering buzzwords in there for you to go Google and spew pages of articles you don't read or understand....

And always accompanied by scientific hypocrisy. Adds weight to the argument, no?
OK ...

Mathematical induction is a method for proving that a statement �(�)

is true for every natural number �

, that is, that the infinitely many cases �(0),�(1),�(2),�(3),…

  all hold. Informal metaphors help to explain this technique, such as falling dominoes or climbing a ladder:

Mathematical induction can be informally illustrated by reference to the sequential effect of falling dominoes.[1][2]

Mathematical induction proves that we can climb as high as we like on a ladder, by proving that we can climb onto the bottom rung (the basis) and that from each rung we can climb up to the next one (the step).

A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base case, proves the statement for �=0

without assuming any knowledge of other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that if the statement holds for any given case �=�

, then it must also hold for the next case �=�+1

. These two steps establish that the statement holds for every natural number �

. The base case does not necessarily begin with �=0

, but often with �=1

, and possibly with any fixed natural number �=�

, establishing the truth of the statement for all natural numbers �≥�

.

The method can be extended to prove statements about more general well-founded structures, such as trees; this generalization, known as structural induction, is used in mathematical logic and computer science. Mathematical induction in this extended sense is closely related to recursion. Mathematical induction is an inference rule used in formal proofs, and is the foundation of most correctness proofs for computer programs.[3]

Although its name may suggest otherwise, mathematical induction should not be confused with inductive reasoning as used in philosophy (see Problem of induction). The mathematical method examines infinitely many cases to prove a general statement, but does so by a finite chain of deductive reasoning involving the variable �

, which can take infinitely many values.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

You can argue all you want, there is no denying that nature has taught us the mathematics we use today, with practical application proving that human mathematics are good approximations of the mathematical processes used by nature in the eventual expression of reality and independent of any observation or symbolic representative inventions.

As Tegmark says; "Most scientists support the concept that the Universe has "some" mathematical properties, I propose the concept that the Universe has only mathematical properties."

And that makes "perfect" sense to me.

 

[Write4U]

Has SciFos traffic dropped so low that we need the traffic that comes with preaching?

And what is it that you are preaching?

 

[Write4U]

Name three universal common mathematical properties that all patterns in nature have, including the human pattern.

a) virtual particles (patterns)
b) gravity (forces)
c) quantum (self-organization)
d) energy (potential)
e) DNA,RNA (biochemically codified mathematical algorithms for growth;
genetic blueprints)

 

[DaveC426913]

mass is a quantity.

No it isn't.

Both have mathematical measurements.

Certainly once there were humans to measure yes.

All the rest that follows is just your ignorant ideas from a smattering of Google articles you've found but not understood.

I would rather accept...

And you're welcome to. But when you peddle that crap in a public place, you make a fool of yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

a) virtual particles (patterns)

Two more things whose meaning escapes you, or you wouldn't notate them as if they are synonymous.

c) quantum (self-organization)

Two more things whose meaning escapes you, or you wouldn't notate them as if they are synonymous. They're not even grammatically the same parts of speech.

Why the fuck is this word salad on my screen.

Mods, stop this madness.

This is:

• off-topic,
• in the wrong forum,
• preaching,
• utter nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: a) virtual particles (patterns)

Two more things whose meaning escapes you, or you wouldn't notate them as if they are synonymous.

Do quantum particles have shape?

I see a mathematical pattern. How about you?

What is the shape of an electron?

(Note that as a quantum object, a proton is not a solid sphere with a hard surface, but is really a quantized wave function that interacts in particle-like collisions as if it were a cloud-like sphere.) If the electron was composed of other particles, it could indeed have a shape when interacting like a particle. Feb 7, 2014

more....
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/02/07/what-is-the-shape-of-an-electron/#

It is you who engaged me.